Content uploaded by Kim Lehman
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Kim Lehman on Jul 14, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
This article was downloaded by: [University of Tasmania], [Kim Lehman]
On: 13 July 2015, At: 20:00
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: 5 Howick Place, London, SW1P 1WG
Click for updates
Journal of Sustainable Tourism
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rsus20
Communicating sustainability priorities
in the museum sector
Mark Wickham
a
& Kim Lehman
b
a
Tasmanian School of Business & Economics, University of
Tasmania, Private Bag 84, Hobart, Tasmania 7000, Australia
b
Tasmanian School of Business & Economics, University of
Tasmania, Locked Bag 1317, Launceston, Tasmania 7250, Australia
Published online: 10 Jul 2015.
To cite this article: Mark Wickham & Kim Lehman (2015): Communicating sustainability priorities in
the museum sector, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, DOI: 10.1080/09669582.2015.1042483
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2015.1042483
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Communicating sustainability priorities in the museum sector
Mark Wickham
a
and Kim Lehman
b
*
a
Tasmanian School of Business & Economics, University of Tasmania, Private Bag 84, Hobart,
Tasmania 7000, Australia;
b
Tasmanian School of Business & Economics, University of Tasmania,
Locked Bag 1317, Launceston, Tasmania 7250, Australia
(Received 10 April 2014; accepted 17 March 2015)
This paper analyses the sustainability priorities evident in the annual reports published
between 2001/2002 and 2010/2011 of Australia’s six state-museums (which represent
the largest and most financially viable cultural heritage tourism organisations in the
country). The study provides insight into the communication of sustainability
priorities in the heritage tourism sector and offers a fine-grained understanding of
what is required for such organisations to effectively manage such priorities. Based on
a content analysis of the annual reports, the paper proposes a Sustainability Priorities
Model for Cultural and Heritage Organisations. The Model reflects two important
findings: first, that the communication of sustainability practices has emerged to play
a central strategic role in the annual reporting of the leading cultural heritage
organisations in Australia; second, that the conceptualisation of sustainability in the
cultural heritage context has widened to include the allocation and utilisation of a
wider range of resources. The Model provides a framework for cultural heritage
tourism organisations to follow in order for them to effectively identify and
communicate the optimal mix of sustainability practices to salient stakeholder groups.
Keywords: heritage tourism; cultural tourism; multidisciplinary; museum; annual
report
Introduction
Cultural heritage tourism (i. e. social, natural and art museums; historic building trusts,
sites and places; local history museums; rural and industrial museums; etc.) has emerged
as an increasingly significan t segment of the tourism industry (Harrison, 200 2 ;
McKercher, 2004; Stylianou-Lambert, 2011), and is now considered an important driver
of regional economic and social development (Cultural Ministers Council Statistics
Working Group, 2010; Garrod & Fyall, 2000; Heaney & Salma, 2003; Travers, 2006). In
2009 in Australia, domestic overnight cultural and heritage tourists injected approxi-
mately AU$10 million into the economy. In addi tion, the average amo unt spent per trip
for those partic ipating in cultural and heritage activities was AU$1030, almost double the
average of AU$580 per trip for those who did not participate (Australian Bureau of Statis-
tics, 2011). In the state of New South Wales alone, cultural and heritage tourists repre-
sented 58% of visitors and 62% of nights stayed by all international tourists in 2012
(Destination NSW, 2013). Recognition of the contribution that cultural heritage tourism
makes to regional economic and social development has been recognised by governments
and cultural tourism organisations alike (Heaney & Salma, 2003; Hossain, Heaney &
Carter, 2005; Tourism Research Australia, 2009; Wray et al., 2010), and there h as been a
*Corresponding author. Email: Kim.Lehman@utas.edu.au
! 2015 Taylor & Francis
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 2015
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2015.1042483
Downloaded by [University of Tasmania], [Kim Lehman] at 20:00 13 July 2015
call to better understand how the sector can deliver its economic and social returns more
effectively and efficiently (European Commission Report. 2014; Foo & Rossetto, 1998;
van Aalst & Boogaarts, 2002; Wild, 2013).
No actor in Australia’s cultural heritage sector has had more pressure to improve the
scale and scope of their contributions to economi c and social development than that of
the largest and most influential organisations ! the six state, publically owned and oper-
ated museums (hereafter, “state-museums”) (Adams, 2010; Lehman, 2009; Scott, 2005).
Change in the sector began in the mid-1970s, which has been identified as the time from
which museum management in Europe, the US and Australia began to incorporate con-
temporary practices from the wider management field (Kawashima, 1997; McLean,
1993; Rentschler & Geursen, 1999). Following this watershed period, there was consider-
able pressure for Australia’s state-museums to expand their reve nue streams from non-
government sources, either by developing new target audiences (Casey & Wehner, 2001),
by seeking new funding sources, commercial opportunities and/or sponsorship (Lehman,
2009; Rentschler, 2004). In addition, in recent years, there have been demands for
accountability of public monies aroun d the world, with the area of arts and cultural fund-
ing no exception (International Feder ation of Arts Counci ls & Culture Agencies, 2005).
As Weil (2002) stated, the result has been an:
… increasing need for government funders, corporate sponsors and other donors to be assured
that the considerable sums they were pumping into museums were being well-employed and
for the purposes intended. (no page)
In short, the six state-museums have been forced to move away from being govern-
ment-run, publicly-funded agencies to instead become market-driven and innovative
organisations responsible for satisfying the needs of an expanding array of salient stake-
holder groups (Lehman, 2009; Scott, 2003). The requirement for museums generally to
achieve these greater returns has resulted in not-for-profit museums (such as Australia’s
state-museums) becoming more akin to for-profit organisations (i.e. competing for market
share, customer patronage, and long-term economic and social sustainability) (Gurel &
Kavak, 2010; Kotler, Kotler, & Kotler, 2008). As such (and consistent with almost every
other major industry sector), the concept of sustainabi lity has become a core legitimising
characteristic for the state-museum sector; the concept has found its way into the profes-
sional literature (see Davies, 2008; Museums Association, 2009; UNESCO, 2014) and
has been the subject of recent academic study (see Chhabra, 2009; Cole, 2004; Donohoe,
2012; Friedman, 2007). The focus on sustainability mirrors the concerns and priorities of
state-museum stakeholders: funding bodies require evidence of sustainability practices in
relation to resource allocation; accrediting bodies require adherence to both government
and industry regulations and benchmarks; and importantly, visitors (as consumers) are
increasingly expecting organisations to be cognisant of their environmental responsibili-
ties; for example, their carbon footprint (Juvan & Dolnicar, 2013).
Given the critical importance of sustainability as a driver of state-museums’ success
(and for wider cultural heritage tourism sector, generally), understanding what constitutes
the most frequently espoused sustainability policies and practices in the sector would
seem to be vital in the present environment (Adams, 2010; Alcaraz, Hume, & Mort,
2009; Cooperative Research Centre for Sustainable Tourism, 2008). Furthermore, as has
been demonstrated in a series of case studies assembled by Industry Canada (2011), effec-
tively communicating sustainability policies and practices has implications across an
organisation’s entire supply chain. Surprisingly, despite research suggesting the culture
2 M. Wickham and K. Lehman
Downloaded by [University of Tasmania], [Kim Lehman] at 20:00 13 July 2015
and heritage sector general ly lacks “ … a sustainability perspective” (Chhabra, 2009, p.
316), to date the issue of communication of sustainability priorities has not been
addressed in either the professional or academic literature. To address the paucity of
research in this area, this paper seeks to analyse the sustainability priorities evident in the
annual reports of Australia’s six state-museums. Our aim is to provide both an insight
into the development and communication of sustainability priorities in the heritage tour-
ism sector, and develop a finer grained understanding of what is required for culture and
heritage organisations to effectively manage such priorities into the future.
Literature review
Each of Australia’s six state-museums were established in the mid-nineteenth century by
their colonial (and subsequently state) governments, and centrally located in the states’
capital cities (see Table 1) (G riffin & Paroissien, 2011). Collectively, the original function
of the six museums was to support the economic growth of the colonies, and to research
and export local flora and fauna specimens back to Britain. In the earliest days of colonial
Australia, attempting to attract funding to such intellectual and cultural pursuits as muse-
ums was difficult; government and business priorities were concentrated on tasks associ-
ated directly with commercial development and nation building (Anderson & Reeves,
1994). Kohlstedt (1983) noted that the minimal financial support provided to museums
was given in part because of the promise of “ … practical results in mining and
agriculture” (p. 11). Similarly, Australia’s loyalties at the time tended to lie with England
(i.e. the “mother country”); for Australian museums, that meant that their “reference
points” and management priorities were heavily influenced by the British Museum model.
As Anderson and Reeves (1994) noted:
For at least the first 60 years of settlement, Australian scientists cheerfully and uncritically
dispatched the most interesting specimens to the country most of them still called home.
(p. 83)
Nonetheless, the latter half of the nineteenth century witnessed a substantial change in
the profile of the museum sector; through the establishment of both “art” and “science and
technology” museums, the priorities of the colonial institutions became focused on the
examination and collection of Australian knowledge and culture (Anderson & Reeves,
1994). Victoria’s Industrial and Technological Museum (est. 1869), for example, had a
strong education focus, and was essentially the first attempt at a technical school for
young people in the colony, and was considered at the time “ … to offer the working clas-
ses the opportunity for instruction taken for granted by other groups in society”
Table 1. Australian state-museums.
Museum Established Location
Australian Museum 1827 Sydney
Museum Victoria 1854 Melbourne
Queensland Museum 1862 Brisbane
South Australian Museum 1861 Adelaide
Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery 1852 Hobart
Western Australian Museum 1891 Perth
Journal of Sustainable Tourism 3
Downloaded by [University of Tasmania], [Kim Lehman] at 20:00 13 July 2015
(Rasmussen, 2001, p. 81). By the turn of the century (and with the advent of Australian
Federalisation in 1901), the colonial museums became “official archives” and “influential
research centres” in each of the “new” Australian states (Harris, 1965). The newly feder-
ated states of Australia were solely responsible for the governance and funding of their
respective museums, and all were heavily influenced by the diversity of funding models,
the “tyranny of distance” issues experie nced at the time and the rampant parochialism
evident. One early review of Australian museums even went so far as to state that from
1830 to the early 1900s:
There was not only no co-operation among museums, but rather a state of complete and utter
indifference between them, part of which was undoubtedly due to the local jealousies of the
period. (Markham & Richards, 1933, p. 7)
Given such a competitive environment, it is not surprising that for the first half of the
twentieth century, the state-museums focused their collections and research efforts in
terms of their home state. Similarly, state government control of the museum s (i.e. all
were established under state-based legislation) meant that they became de facto govern-
ment departments, with restricted opening hours, and a narrow view of the role museums
might play within society. For instance, for a considerable period of time, museums were
only open during weekdays when most of the general population were at work (Anderson
& Reeves, 1994).
In the period following the Second World War, it has been said that Australian cul-
tural life underwent “ … something of a renaissance” (Anderson & Reeves, 1994, p. 103),
with the federal government accepting a limited role in the funding of the arts. Very little,
though, changed in the museum sector, particularly in the way museums viewed their
role in society (Casey & Wehner, 2001). In contrast, the 1960s saw a rapid growth in his-
torical museums, predominately in the regional areas of Australia. This has been attrib-
uted to both a renewed interest in Australian history and the constraints placed on the
major state museums by cautiou s trustees and reduced budgets (Pigott et al., 1975). The
1960s was also a time when the increasing profile of the marketing profession was
impacting on the way museums viewed visitors (Casey & Wehner, 2001), with visitor
surveys becoming increasingly significant in providing data for policy and strategy
development.
The increasing importance of marketing culminated in a series of government-led
reviews of the state-museum sector (regarding their scope of operations and reliance on
public funding) during the 1970s. Inter Alia, the various reviews’ conclusions that:
… [the] better performing museums are those where the executive has strong domain knowl-
edge, and where there is at least a reasonable degree of separation from government through
substantial delegation of responsibilities to shape resource allocation and performance
(Griffin, 2008, p. 44)
culminated in recognition that the sector needed to adapt to increased marketplace com-
petition and respond to challenges inherent to the onrush of globalisation (Cond
!
e, 2011).
The increased importance of competition and market-based decision capabilities (and the
need for greater accountability and transparency) led to significant change in the sector.
Most obviously, these changes man ifest in new governance mechanisms, increased
reporting requirements, the recruitment of specialist managers and the adoption of
“for-profit” business practices across the sector. In Australia, this rise in professionalism
has been evidenced by what Rentschler and Geursen (1999) call “ … a shift of authority
4 M. Wickham and K. Lehman
Downloaded by [University of Tasmania], [Kim Lehman] at 20:00 13 July 2015
from the layperson to the professional director” (p. 13). The changes reflected the new
expectation that the state-museum sector would be able to transition to one that was muc h
more responsive to consumers and to market demand generally, and be capable of making
a greater contribution to their own funding (Lehman, 2009; Rentschler, 2007). Over the
past two decades, senior museum staff have had to become steadily more professional,
not only in the narrow scope of the individual museum’s discipline areas, but also more
broadly in the fields of business management, conservation, collection management, com-
munications; public programming and marketing (Hudson, 1998). In Australia, the corpo-
ratorisation of the state-museum sector culminated in the National Standards for
Australian Museums and Galleries (N ational Standards Taskforce, 2011) report, which
was produced collaboratively by Arts Tasmania, History SA, the Museum and Gallery
Services Queensland, Museums & Galleries NSW , Museums Australia (Victoria), and
the West ern Australian Museum. At the core of the National Standards document is the
concept of sustainability as it relates to the interaction and management of salient stake-
holder groups:
The National Standards for Australian Museums and Galleries are focused on key areas of
activity common to organisations that care for collections and provide collection-based serv-
ices to the community. The National Standards have been developed with the aim of support-
ing Australian museums and galleries in carrying out their day-to-day activities, meeting
their responsibilities to their various stakeholders, attracting support and achieving their other
organisational objectives. (National Standards Taskforce, 2011, p. 8)
The National Standards document establishes four principles related to managing
museums in this regard:
"
Principle 1: The museum has a sound legal and management framework that fol-
lows recognised museum ethics and protocols.
"
Principle 2: The museum is effectively managed, sustainable and publicly
accountable.
"
Principle 3: The museum manages its workers to make the best use of their skills
and knowledge, and to achieve the museum’s purpose.
"
Principle 4: The museum is a secure, well-managed facility that presents a positive
public image. (National Standards Taskforce, 2011, p. 15: emphasis added)
The increased importance of sustainability to the state-museum sector mirrored the
significant change in societal expectations concerning issues such as climate change, spe-
cies extinction and resources scarcity (e.g. fossil fuels and water usage) that have entered
the public discourse (Manney et al., 2011; Mark, 2012; Thomas & Mark, 2012). The sus-
tainability debate in the museum literature has largely manifest on issues of environmen-
tal practice and cultural heritage protections. Brophy and Wylie (2008), for example,
consider the philosophy of museums being “green”, and certainly cover wider issues of
environmental management and resource sustainability across museums’ activities; they
do not, however, consider issues related to the sustainability of the museum as an organi-
sation. It is the organisational sustainability concept that brings into focus the alloca tion
and utilisation of more varied factors such as human and economic resources which now
has implications for culture and heritage organisations (Deloitte, 2011). This latter point
is particularly the case with not-for-profit, publicly-funded organisations such as state-
museums, which in many ways are expected to be exemplars of sustainability practice
given their perceived high level of professional and scientific knowledge and expertise in
Journal of Sustainable Tourism 5
Downloaded by [University of Tasmania], [Kim Lehman] at 20:00 13 July 2015
the area (Museums Australia, 2003). In relation to museums generally, Adams (2010)
pointed out:
Through the practice of maintaining a collection in perpetuity, the task of a museum ‘ … [is]
to serve both current and future generations through the display and interpretation of objects
now, and to pass on the collections, knowledge and information to the future’. (p. 11)
However, despite a slow start, a broader understanding of the concept of sustain-
ability is becoming prevalent in professional practice; in 2003 Museums Australia
released the first set of English language guidelines that consid ered sustainability
across all aspects of a m useum’s activities (Adams, 2010). More recently, the U K’s
Museums Association has published a discussion paper, con ducted consultations and
produced a report on a wide range of sustainability issues concerning museums (Muse-
ums Association, 2009). Similarly, the National Standards for Australian Museums
and Galleries report noted above explicitly includes sustainability as a core organising
concept f or effective management. Here, “Principle A2” (National Standards Task-
force, 2011,p.23)encompassesarangeofcriteriamovingonfromapurelyenviron-
mental perspective of sustainability. The development of such standards is evidence of
the museum sector attempting to establish benchmarks for best practice as regards their
sustainability strategies. A n important facet of best practice for the heritage tourism
sector is how organisations communicate their sustainability priorities, given the
importance of stakeholder collaboration in the sector (Landorf, 2009). Certainly, it has
been recognised in the business sector that a key component of a firm’s sustainability
policies is t o:
… develop meaningful reports for internal management and stakeholders, outlining the
enterprise’s sustainable development objectives and comparing performance against them.
(International Institute for Sustainable Development, 2013)
Similarly, in the broader sector, the need for communication to be integrated across
internal and external publics to ensure effective management practice has also been noted
(McLean, 1998). The issue has been addressed within Museum Australia’s (2003)
document:
Sustainability must be incorporated into missions, visions and organisational structures … .
Decision-making should involve the community and other stakeholders … Opportunities for
access to information, participation in decision-making and access to justice should be avail-
able to all. (p. 5)
With respect to cultural heritage tourism organisations, Donohoe (2012) has noted
that “ … transparent communications and best-practice reporting” (p. 138) are critical
components of effective marketing and management practices, as they enable them to
identify and fulfil stakeholder groups’ expectations. It is appropriate, then, that an analy-
sis of the sustainability priorities communicated by the six state-museums takes place.
Exploring the sustainability practices included in the Australian state-museums’ annual
report will help establish the baseline of best practice emerging in the cultural heritage
tourism sector, and will provide guidance to researchers and practitioners in the sector
going forward. Consequently, this paper seeks to address the following research question:
What sustainable practice priorities are evident in the annual reports of Australian state-
museums (2001!2010)?
6 M. Wickham and K. Lehman
Downloaded by [University of Tasmania], [Kim Lehman] at 20:00 13 July 2015
Method
In order to address this research question, this study undertook a content analysis of the
annual reports of the six Australian state-museums published between 2001/2002 and
2010/2011. The Australian state-museums were selected as the sample on the basis of
their role as pre-eminent cultural heritage organisations, both nationally and in their
respective states – their size and consequent influence means they dominate the cultural
heritage landscape in Australia. There is a historical basis for this circumstance - each is
the current iteration of an original Australian Colonial museum, also useful here as it
allows for a longitudinal perspective as well as a national census. In addition, the state-
museums have a continuous and well-documented history; they provide an example of
the tension between the pote ntially conflicting multiple roles within society (for example,
in recent year s, museums have developed new roles as economic development “engines”
within communities, and as tourist destinations in cultural precincts driving income and
employment) (Kotler & Kotler, 2000). As the pre-eminent cultural institutions, each Aus-
tralian state-m useum faces pressure from many stakeholders to remain relevant, viable
and sustainable institutions (Adams, 2010; Lehman & Roach, 2011; Museums Aus tralia,
2003). The rationale for using the state-museums’ annual reports, therefore, is twofold:
first, the document is mandated by statute to be published by each of the museums, and
must include financial and social measures of performance; second, each museum has
full control over the content and framing of their sustainability activities in this document,
which itself is aimed at addressing salient stakeholder groups’ priorities.
In total, 60 annual reports were collected for scrutiny; each of the annual reports
(downloaded from the respective state-museums’ official websites) was subject to a rigor-
ous content analysis process that followed the protocols identified by Finn, White, and
Walton (2000 ), Hodson (1999) and Neumann (2003). In the first stage, the aims and
objectives of the research were identified, and the first-round data coding rules were
developed. Coding refers to the process of converting information into contextual values
for the purposes of data storage, management and analysis allowing theme identification
(Ticehurst & Veal, 2000 ). Using the literature review as a guide, we initially organised
the data by the sustainability variables established in the Global Reporting Initiative’s
Sustainability Reporting Guidelines document (2013). The Global Reporting Initiative
(GRI) is an international, independent not-for-profit organisation established in 1997 (in
partnership with the United Nations’ Environment Programme) and promotes economic,
environmental and social sustainability (Hedberg & von Malmborg, 2003; Willis, 2003).
The GRI’s Sustainability Reporting Guidelines provide an extensive framework for the
voluntary reporting of sustainability performance (see Table 2), and has emerged to be
the most widely used framework world-wide since its inception in 2000 (Hindley &
Buys, 2012; Toppinen & Korhonen-Kuri, 2013).
In the second stage of the content analysis, all of the data in the annual reports were
converted into MS Word
"
document format, and entered into a codified database. The
data were then interrogated to determine whether each of the GRI sustainability issues
were present in the annual report (or not) over the 10-year sample period (see Table 3 for
the results). At regular interv als, inter-coder reliability checks were undertaken to ensure
that the data were coded consistently with the coding rules established in Stage 1. The
inter-coder reliability checking process for this research was based on the three-stage pro-
cess recommended by Compton, Love and Sell (2012): first, the researchers pre-tested
the coding rules for the data gathered in 20% of the sample annual reports (i.e. two annual
reports from each state museum). Second, the researchers developed an agreement as to
Journal of Sustainable Tourism 7
Downloaded by [University of Tasmania], [Kim Lehman] at 20:00 13 July 2015
how ambiguous data were to be handled (i.e. instances where data could either be coded
in to more than one code). Third, the researchers determined the level of inter-coder reli-
ability achieved in the coding process by calculating its Krippendorff’s alpha. The
researchers selected Krippendorff’s alpha as the measure as it is flexible enough to be
used for any number of coders, and it can be used for determining the coding reliability
Table 2. First-round coding variables.
GRI coding category First round coding rules ! i.e. categorise data pertaining to:
Economic sustainability " Economic performance indicators
" Market presence
" Indirect economic impacts
" Procurement practices
Environmental sustainability " Usage of materials, energy and water
" Impacts on biodiversity
" Management of emissions, effluents and waste
" Legal compliance
" Transportation
" Supplier environmental assessment
" Grievance mechanisms
Social sustainability " Labour practices
" Human rights
" Community consultation
" Product responsibility
Note: Sourced from Global Reporting Initiative (2013)
Table 3. Frequency of SRMs reporting incidence of the GRI sustainability recommendations.
First round coding rule
2001/
2002
2002/
2003
2003/
2004
2004/
2005
2005/
2006
2006/
2007
2007/
2008
2008/
2009
2009/
20010
2010/
20011
Economic performance 4 4 4 4 5 5 6 6 6 6
Market presence 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4
Indirect economic impact 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2
Procurement practices 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 2 2
Materials, energy, water 2 2 2 2 3 3 4 4 4 4
Impacts on biodiversity 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Emissions, effluents, etc. 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 4 4
Legal compliance 3 3 4 4 5 6 6 6 6 6
Transportation 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Supplier assessment 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1
Grievance mechanisms 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Labour practices 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4
Human rights 0 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 3
Community consultation 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 3
Product responsibility 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3
Total incidences 18 21 23 28 33 36 43 44 42 47
Note: The figures in this Table represent the results from the second round data coding.
8 M. Wickham and K. Lehman
Downloaded by [University of Tasmania], [Kim Lehman] at 20:00 13 July 2015
of a wide range of (nominal, ordinal, interval and ratio) data (Krippendorff, 2004). Typi-
cally, the Krippendorff’s alph a score needs to exceed 0.8 in order for the coding results to
be considered reliable and replicable; the Krippendorff’s alpha score for this research was
calculated as a D 0.958.
In the third stage of the content analysis, data were further interrogated to detect any
idiosyncratic relationships that existed between the sustainability issues and priorities
communicated in the annual reports over time (see Table 4). As with the second stage
data coding process, inter-coder reliability measures were again adopted; both researc hers
coded the data in tandem to ensure consensus regarding the “significant relationships”
detected was maintained throughout. The creation of the codified database, the interpreta-
tion of the data during the second and third rounds of coding, and the verification of the
conclusions were all facilitated by the use of the NVIVO (Version 10.0) software pack-
age. In the method literature, it is emphasised that computer software programs such as
NVIVO are of significant value in qualitative analysis and any subsequent theory building
(Kelle, 1995; Richards & Richards, 1995; Weitzman & Miles, 1995). Where it was appro-
priate, data were allocated to more than one node for analysis; using the NVIVO software,
the contents of each of the initial index nodes were reviewed to identify common themes
that arose in the data pertaining to sustainability priorities. In order to facilitate the theory
building process, research memos were maintained about the data, their categories and
the relationships between them as they emerged. NVIVO has a facility for the creation
and retention of such memos for later consideration and analysis. Utilising the memo
capability within the NVIVO package, memo reports were generated by the software after
Table 4. Sustainability priorities reported in the annual reports of Australia’s state-museums.
Category (third round coding) Sustainability priorities (third round coding and memos)
The museum Itself " The Museum’s infrastructure (i.e. its plant/equipment/policies/
mission/record keeping/internet portals, etc.)
" As an economic entity/ongoing business venture (incl.
governance/finance/marketing)
" The Museum’s reputation (including risk management and
community consultation)
The museum’s collections " The security/protection of the collections under the Museums’
control
" The integrity of the collections (i.e. full disclosure of “authentic”
versus “fake” artefacts)
" The integrity of the heritage represented by the collections (i.e.
ensuring “authenticity” is maintained/incl. educational roles)
The museum’s “people” " Sustainable HRM practices
" Existence and enforcement of Codes of Ethics
" Recruitment of specialised expertise as required (i.e. no short-cuts
in personnel management)
" Cultural-sensitivity and ongoing skills-training for all staff
" Effective volunteer management
" Inclusion of representative community/cultural viewpoints
The natural environment " Inclusive of disadvantaged/marginalised groups
" Impact on the environment
" Carbon footprint measurement
" Resource management
Journal of Sustainable Tourism 9
Downloaded by [University of Tasmania], [Kim Lehman] at 20:00 13 July 2015
the second and third round data coding. From these reports, the trends and emergent
themes became clearer. The themes emanating from the second and third round of data
coding form the basis of the discussion section that follows.
Results
The second-stage coding of the annual report data indicated that 10 of the 15 GRI’s sus-
tainability recomm endations were dete cted in the state-m useums’ annual reports in the
first year of the sample period. The frequency data (see Table 3) indicated that in the first
year, data relating to the GRI’s sustainability recommendations were detected a total of
18 times in the six annual report documents. Both the number of sustainability recom-
mendations detected in the annual reports (and the level of their incidence) increased
markedly over the sample period; by the final year of the sample, 14 of the 15 sustainabil-
ity recommendations were detected, with an incidence count of 47 times in the six annual
reports for that year. Table 3 details the number of state-museums’ annual reports to
include the individual GRI sustainability recommendations across the sample period, and
demonstrates a pattern of increased reporting of, and sensitivity to, the sustainability
issues now considered the benchmark in “for-profit organisations”. (NB: The only GRI
sustainability recommendation not detected at all across the sample period was that con-
cerning “grievance mechanisms”, which is likely explained by the fact that the majority
of the interactions between the museums and their target customers are non-fina ncial in
nature).
After the second-stage coding of the data against the GRI sustainability recommenda-
tions was completed, there remained a substantial amount of un-coded sustainability data
that had to be allocated to additional “free code categories” for further analysis. The third
stage of coding, therefore, sought to reconcile the GRI sustainability recommendations
and the remnant un-coded data in a way that effectively represented the idiosyncrasies
apparent in the state-museums’ sustainability issues reporting. A pattern matching process
(i.e. using a text search function to identify common words and phrases in the annual
reports) identified four key thematic areas related to the sustainability reporting priorities
in the six state-museums; Table 4 represents the synthesis of these thematic areas, and the
related sustainability priorities evident in the data. (NB: Table 4 will be discussed further
below).
Discussion
Table 3 demonstrates the increased emphasis that the six state-museums collectively
placed on reporting the GRI sustainability issues over the 10-year sample period. The
increased emphasis demonstrated in Table 3 is commensura te with the increased pressure
for state-museums to become market-driven and innovative organisations responsible for
satisfying the needs of an expanding array of salient stakeholder groups. It is interesting
to note that only 2 of the 15 GRI sustainability recommendations were detected in all six
of the museums’ annual reports (and then, only in the final four years of the sample
period), namely “Economic performance” and “Legal compliance”. This fin ding is con-
sistent with the state-museums’ espoused strategies to attract and secure non-government
funding sources, and to demonstrate to their financial stakeholders transparency in the
returns on investment achieved in each financial year. The remaining 12 GRI sustainabil-
ity recommendations were detected in only (albeit increasingly) proportions of the state-
museum annual reports, indicating that these elements were either not relevant to specific
10 M. Wickham and K. Lehman
Downloaded by [University of Tasmania], [Kim Lehman] at 20:00 13 July 2015
museum, or that the non-reporting museums were yet to recognise the importance of these
issues to their salient stakeholder groups. The five GRI sustainability recommendations
that were not widely detected in this research (despite the increased emphasis on the sus-
tainability recommendations overall) were: “Supplier assessment”, “Procurement
practices”, “Indirect economic impact”, “Impacts on biodiversity” and “Grievance mech-
anisms”. The relative under-representation of these sustainability issues may arguably be
the case for two main reasons: first, that they are not specifically relevant to the ongoing
operations of this type of heritage organisation, and second, that the issues inherent to
these GRI sustainability recommendations are not currently priorities of the museums’
salient stakeholder groups (and therefore, not reflected in the reporting priorities of man-
agement). Whilst “Grievance mechanisms” and “Impact on biodiversity” may arguably
be under-represented for both reasons mentioned above, it appears incongruous that the
state-museums (who are increasingly reliant on the acquisition of new exhibits and gener-
ating new sources of funding) would collectively fail to report supplier assessment, pro-
curement practices and indirect economic impact issues more widely.
Tables 3 also suggests that the GRI’s sustainability recommendations were not ini-
tially considered “core” or “general” reporting priorities of the state-museums, and that
their recognition and reporting coincided directly with their increased exposure to market
forces. Similarly, it suggests that in the case of the six state-museums, the capacity to
report sustainability priorities grew incrementally, and that it took time and management
expertise to recognise the organisation’s salient stakeholder groups, ascertain their priori-
ties and change the structures and cultures of the organisations to serve them effectively.
The explicit inclusion of sustainability priorities in the mission and vision statements of
the state-museums’ annual reports (see Table 5) ! which occurred at different times
throughout the sample period ! demonstrates the increased importance that sustainability
reporting has played in the ongoing legitimisation of the sector. The collective increases
and emphasis in sustainability reporting is likely a response to isomorphic pressures
within the sector to secure competitive funding and protect market-share in increasingly
competitive conditions (i.e. the increasing emphasis in sustainability reporting across the
sector has set the tone for the annual reports generally, as well as the agenda for how staff
and management are expected to recognise, interact and satisfy the needs of their salient
stakeholder groups).
As noted, Table 4 presents the outcomes of the third stage data coding by summaris-
ing the relationships between the sustainability priorities identified in the mission and
vision statements and the idiosyncratic practices detected in the state-museums’ annual
reports. In sum, four main sustainability priorities to the state-museum sector were
detected: i.e. the sustainability of: the museum itself (its ongoing viab ility and value crea-
tion activities), the museums’ collections, the museums’ people and the natural environ-
ment. Importantly, the core mission and vision statements explicitly link the
organisations’ sustainability priorities to (1) the internal environment of the organisations
! specifically to its infrastructure, its people and its collections and (2) the exte rnal envi-
ronment of the organisation ! specifically to the history and culture of its particular loca-
tion, the processes (and relationship management) involved in the gathering, display and
protection of artefacts/exhibits, and the natural environment from which it draws its
resources. The increasing concern with sustainability issues evident in the data (noted in
Table 3) is, therefore, directed in a particular fashion towards the needs of the cultural
heritage tourism sector (see Table 4). In many ways, Australia’s state-museums are exem-
plars of best practice in the development and communication of sustainability priorities in
this sector, and with this in mind, we present the following Sustainability Priorities Model
Journal of Sustainable Tourism 11
Downloaded by [University of Tasmania], [Kim Lehman] at 20:00 13 July 2015
for Cultural & Heritage Organisations (see Figure 1). This Model both provides an over-
view of the sustainability communication activities of Australia’s pre-eminent cultural
heritage tourism organ isations, and as well as a best practice framework for other similar
organisations in the sector to follow.
The Model demonstrates that the communication of sustainability practices has
emerged to play a central and strategic role in the annual reporting of the leading cultural
heritage organisations in Australia. Given the commercial pressures placed upon Austral-
ia’s six state-museums over the past two decades, the adoption of sustainability as part of
their missions and vision statements mirr ors that which has been present in “for-profit”
corporate annual reports since the rise of the sustainability issue in that sector during the
1980s. As with the “for-profit” sector, it would appear that cultural heritage organisations
now take measures to clearly define “who and what” they represent and serve in a given
marketplace; that is, they must consider constructing mission and vision statements to
identify and connect with a wide array of salient stakeholder groups in order to remain
viable. Importantly, the Model indicates that, in the cultural heritage sector, these groups
can be stakeholders (i.e. “culture”, “artefacts”, “history” and “natural environment”) and
internal stakeholders (i.e. the museum’s “people”, “infrastructure” and “collections”).
Table 5. Reference to sustainability priorities in the mission and vision statements of the state-
museums’ annual reports.
Museum Reference to sustainability priorities
Australian Museum Noted as organisational goal: “Build an environmentally
sustainable
workplace to promote and demonstrate sustainability values”
(Australian Museum, 2011, p. 10).
Museum Victoria Noted as a strategic direction concerning environmental
responsibility: “Contribute to community wellbeing by increasing
public awareness about issues regarding
sustainability; and
Promote and implement
eco-sustainable practices within the
museum” (Museums Board of Victoria, 2011, p. 7).
Queensland Museum Noted as a strategic objective from the Strategic Plan 2010 !14:
“
Sustainability - Strategic priorities delivered through the growth
and maintenance of a sustainable organisation” (Queensland
Museum, 2011, p. 10).
South Australian Museum Noted as an “Achievement and Initiative”: “The museum continues to
sustain and develop its commitment to key objectives of the South
Australian Strategic Plan (2007). In particular: Attaining
sustainability - through the museum’s endeavours in energy and
water conservation and the promotion of sustainability initiatives
through its public programs” (South Australian Museum Board,
2011, p. 4).
Tasmanian Museum and Art
Gallery (TMAG)
TMAG aims to provide an environment that both stimulates and
educates the general public;
collects and conserves material
evidence within the areas of humanities, including visual arts,
history and anthropology, and the biological and physical sciences
(TMAG, 2014).
Western Australian Museum Noted under “Our Values”: “
Sustainable - We aspire to be socially,
environmentally and economically sustainable and will work in
partnership with others to maximise public benefit and value for
money” (Western Australian Museum, 2011, p. 6).
12 M. Wickham and K. Lehman
Downloaded by [University of Tasmania], [Kim Lehman] at 20:00 13 July 2015
This supports the n otion that sustainability in the cultural herita ge context must be wid-
ened to include the allocation and utilisation of a wider range of resources (e.g. human
capital, cultural, historical, social and economi c resources), in addition to what have been
traditionally viewed as natural environment resources (Deloitte, 2011). The Model also
demonstrates that the concept of sustainability is becoming routinised as a management
practice in the state-museum sector, and (given the power of isomorphic pressure to con-
form to best-practices) is likely to become an important legitimising characteristic for the
cultural heritage tourism sector as a whole.
Conclusion
The purpose of this paper was to provide insight into the best-practice communication of
sustainability priorities by the pre-eminent organisations in the Australian heritage tour-
ism sector, and offer a finer grained understanding of what is required for such organisa-
tions to effectively manage their sustainability priorities. Given the increasing levels of
competition for non-government funding and market-relevance that this sector has experi-
enced, providing managers of heritage tourism operations with a framework for connect-
ing with their stakeholder groups in a more effective/competitive manner in this regard is
a timely addition to practice in the sector. Ana lysis of the data suggests that our Sustain-
ability Priorities Model for Cultural & Heritage Organisations is one that can assist cul-
tural heritage tourism organisations identify and communicate an optimal mix of
sustainability practices (and related strategies) to their salient stakeholder groups. The
data also suggest, however, that cultural heritage tourism organisations necessarily pos-
sess operational idiosyncrasies that management must remain cognisant of in order that
they not be overlooked in the sustainability reporting process. In other words, there
appears a danger that cultural heritage tourism organisa tions that rigidly adhere to sustain-
ability reporting frameworks originally designed for for-profit sectors (without due
Figure 1. A Sustainability Priorities Model for Cultural and Heritage Organisations.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism 13
Downloaded by [University of Tasmania], [Kim Lehman] at 20:00 13 July 2015
consideration for their own circumstances, resources and capabilities) may not be in a
position to formulate the most effective sustainability reporting strategy.
Following on from this, the wide array of organisa tion and institutio nal types across
numerous cultural heritage sectors poses a challenge for tour ism researchers to extend
our Model beyond the (albeit influential) state-museum sector. For example, it has been
recognised that visitors to art galleries and museums represent distinct sub-sets of the cul-
tural tourist segment, in as much as they are seeking specific types of experiences (i.e. a
fine arts experience, historical sites and attractions (Leighton, 2007; Stylianou-Lambert,
2011)). The same question can be asked of transient events and annual festivals, where
cultural tourists travel to destinations for specific types of cultural experiences; these
events and festivals are aimed at those seeking immersion in a lifestyle, even if that is
only for a short period of time (Gibson & Connell, 2003; Lehman, 2012). Our proposed
Model suggests five broad research opportunities going forward:
" Do small/medium-s ized organisations in niche cultural heritage tourism sectors
communicate the same sustainably priorities as larger entities?
" To what extent do the sustainability priorities com municated by preeminent cul-
tural heritage organisations influence other organisations communication strategies
in their sector?
" To what extent does the resource availability affect the communication of cultur al
tourism operations’ sustainably priorities?
" Do niche cultural herita ge tour ism organisations experience the same pressures to
communicate their sustainability priorities as larger organisations in their sector?
" To what exte nt does the professional background of the cultural heritage organ-
isation’s management team impact on the sustainability priorities com municated
by that organ isation?
Research in these broad areas will shed light on strategies applicable for cultural heri-
tage sector, where sustainability is not so easily defined or communicated to the needs of
their extant stakeholder groups. While we concede there are numerous avenues of
research inquiry to be addressed in this regard, we believe our Model provides a useful
lens for framing sustainability research in the culture and heritage tourism context, as
well as a means for interpreting the results that emanate from this line of inquiry.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes on contributors
Dr Mark Wickham is a senior lecturer at the University of Tasmania, teaching introduction to man-
agement and business ethics. His research interests include qualitative methodology, social enter-
prise strategy and corporate social responsibility in sin-industries.
Kim Lehman lectures in marketing communications and strategy at the University of Tasmania. His
research interests focus on marketing strategy in the arts, museum and cultural sectors, and the
development of associated theory. He leads a number of research projects as part of this focus, and
has published and presented his research internationally.
14 M. Wickham and K. Lehman
Downloaded by [University of Tasmania], [Kim Lehman] at 20:00 13 July 2015
References
Adams, E. (2010). Towards sustainability indicators for museums in Australia. Collections Council
of Australia. Retrieved March 6, 2014, from http://www.collectionscouncil.com.au/Default.
aspx?tabidD802
Alcaraz, C., Hume, M., & Mort, G.S. (2009). Creating sustainable practice in a museum context:
Adopting service-centricity in non-profit museums. Australasian Marketing Journal, 17(4),
212!225.
Anderson, M., & Reeves, A. (1994). Contested identities: Museums and the nation in Australia. In
F. Kaplan (Ed.), Museums and the making of “ourselves”: The role of objects in the national
identity (pp. 79!124). London: Leicester University Press.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). (2011). Arts and culture in Australia: A statistical overview
2011, Cat. No. 4172.0, Canberra: Author.
Australian Museum. (2011). Annual report 2010!2011. Sydney: Australian Museum Trust.
Brophy, S.S., & Wylie, E. (2008). The green museum: A primer on environmental practice. Lan-
ham, MD: Altamira Press.
Casey, D., & Wehner, K. (2001). Accounting for audiences in Australian museums. Year Book Aus-
tralia, Cat. No. 1301.0, Canberra: ABS.
Chhabra, D. (2009). Proposing a sustainable marketing framework for heritage tourism. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism, 17(3), 303!320.
Cole, D. (2004). Exploring the sustainability of mining heritage tourism. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, 17(3), 480!494.
Compton, D., Love, T. P., & Sell, J. (2012). Developing and assessing inter-coder reliability in stud-
ies of group interaction. Sociological Methodology, 42, 348!364.
Cond
!
e, A. (2011). “The orphans of government”: The Committee of Inquiry on Museums and
National Collections (The Pigott Report), 1974!75. In D. Griffin & L. Paroissien (Eds.),
Understanding museums: Australian Museums and Museology. National Museum of Australia.
Retrieved March 6, 2014, from http://www.nma.gov.au/research/understanding-museums/
AMConde_2011.html
Cooperative Research Centre for Sustainable Tourism. (2008). Culture and heritage tourism:
Understanding the issues and success factors. Retrieved February 2, 2014, from http://www.sus
tainabletourismonline.com/awms/Upload/Resource/CRC%208012%20Culture%20and%20
Heritage%20bk_LoRes.pdf
Cultural Ministers Council Statistics Working Group. (2010). Vital signs: Cultural indicators for
Australia (1st ed. ! for consultation). Canberra: National Centre for Culture and Recreation
Statistics, ABS.
Davies, M. (2008). A sustainable future. Museums Journal, 106(8), 29!31.
Deloitte. (2011). The sustainable board. Retrieved February 10, 2014, from https://www.deloitte.
com/assets/Dcom-Australia/Local%20Assets/Documents/Services/Climate%20change%20and
%20sustainability/Deloitte_The_Sustainable_Board_Jan2012.pdf
Destination NSW. (2013). Cultural and heritage tourism to NSW, year ended December 2012.
Retrieved February 5, 2014, from http://www.destinationnsw.com.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/
0006/193830/Cultural-and-heritage-tourism-YE-Dec-12.pdf
Donohoe, H.M. (2012). Sustainable heritage tourism marketing and Canada’s Rideau Canal World
Heritage site. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 20(1), 121!142.
European Commission Report. (2014). Towards an integrated approach to cultural heritage for
Europe. Retrieved November 30, 2014, from http://ec.europa.eu/culture/library/publications/
2014-heritage-communication_en.pdf
Finn, M., White, E. M., & Walton, M. (2000). Tourism and leisure research methods: Data Collec-
tion, analysis and interpretation. Harlow: Pearson Education.
Foo, L.M., & Rossetto, A. (1998). BTR Occasional Paper Number 27: Cultural tourism in Australia
! characteristics and motivations. Canberra: Bureau of Tourism Research.
Friedman, A. J. (2007). The great sustainability challenge: How visitor studies can save cultural
institutions in the 21st century. Visitor Studies, 10(1), 3!12.
Garrod, B., & Fyall, A. (2000). Managing heritage tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(3),
682!708.
Gibson, C., & Connell, J. (2003). “Bongo fury”: Tourism, music and cultural economy at Byron
Bay, Australia. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 94(2), 164!187.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism 15
Downloaded by [University of Tasmania], [Kim Lehman] at 20:00 13 July 2015
Global Reporting Initiative. (2013). G4 sustainability reporting guidelines. Amsterdam: Global
Reporting Initiative. Retrieved January 25, 2014, from https://www.globalreporting.org/report
ing/g4/Pages/default.aspx
Griffin, D. (2008). Advancing museums. Museum Management and Curatorship, 23(1), 43!61.
Griffin, D., & Paroissien, L. (2011). Museums in Australia: From a new era to a new century. In D.
Griffin & L. Paroissien (Eds.), Understanding museums: Australian museums and museology.
National Museum of Australia. Retrieved March 6, 2014, from http://www.nma.gov.au/
research/understanding-museums/DGriffin_LParoissien_2011a.html
Gurel, E., & Kavak, B. (2010). A conceptual model for public relations in museums. European
Journal of Marketing, 44(1/2), 42!65.
Harris, M. (1965, May 1). History on the hoof: Keep Canberra’s dead hand off the relics of
Australia’s past. The Australian, 9.
Harrison, S. (2002). Culture, tourism and local community: The heritage identity of the Isle of Man.
Journal of Brand Management, 9(4/5), 355!371.
Heaney, L., & Salma, U. (2003). Economic impact of cultural tourists in Australia. Canberra:
Bureau of Tourism Research.
Hedberg, C., & von Malmborg, F. (2003). The Global Reporting Initiative and corporate sustain-
ability reporting in Swedish companies. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental
Management, 10(3), 153!164.
Hindley, T., & Buys, P. (2012). Integrated reporting compliance with the global reporting initiative
framework: An analysis of the South African mining industry. International Business & Eco-
nomics Research Journal, 11(11), 1249!1260.
Hodson, R. (1999). Analyzing documentary accounts: Quantitative applications in the social scien-
ces. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hossain, A., Heaney, L., & Carter, P. (2005). Cultural tourism in regions of Australia. Canberra:
Bureau of Tourism Research.
Hudson, K. (1998). The museum refuses to stand still. Museum International (UNESCO, Paris), 50
(1), 43!50.
Industry Canada. (2011). Green marketing gets real: The why, the “what” and the “how” of sus-
tainability communication at point of purchase. Retrieved January 20, 2014, from http://www.
ic.gc.ca/eic/site/csr-rse.nsf/vwapj/green_marketing.pdf/$file/green_marketing.pdf
International Federation of Arts Councils and Culture Agencies. (2005). D’Art report 18: Statistical
Indicators for Arts Policy. Retrieved from http://www.ifacca.org/topic/statistical-indicators-
for-arts-policy/
International Institute for Sustainable Development. (2013). Business strategy for sustainable devel-
opment. Retrieved February 10, 2014, from www.iisd.org/business/pdf/business_strategy.pdf
Juvan, E., & Dolnicar, S. (2013). Can tourists easily choose a low carbon footprint vacation? Jour-
nal of Sustainable Tourism, 22(2), 175!194.
Kawashima, N. (1997). Museum management in a time of change: Impacts of cultural policy on
museums in Britain, 1979!1997 (Working Paper 3). Coventry: Centre for the Study of Cultural
Policy, University of Warwick.
Kelle, U. (1995). Computer-aided qualitative data analysis: Theory, methods, and practice. Lon-
don: Sage.
Kohlstedt, S.G. (1983). Australian museums of natural history: Public practices and scientific initia-
tives. Historical Records of Australian Science, 5(4), 1!30.
Kotler, N., & Kotler, P. (2000). Can museums be all things to all people? Missions, goals, and mar-
keting’s role.
Museum Management and Curatorship, 18(3), 271!287.
Krippendorff, K. (2004). Reliability in content analysis: Some common misconceptions and recom-
mendations. Human Communication Research, 30(3), 411!433.
Kotler, N., Kotler, P., & Kotler, W. (2008). Museum strategy and marketing: Designing missions,
building audiences, generating revenues and resources (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Landorf, C. (2009). Managing for sustainable tourism: A review of six cultural World Heritage
sites. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 17(1), 53!70.
Lehman, K. (2009). Museums and the modern public: A marketing context. Journal of Arts Man-
agement, Law and Society, 39(2), 87!100.
Lehman, K. (2012). Connecting to the cultural consumer: The MONA FOMA experience. In P.
Kotler, S. Adams, S. Denize & G. Armstrong (Eds.), Principles of marketing (5th ed.) (pp.
181!183). Frenchs Forest: Pearson Prentice Hall.
16 M. Wickham and K. Lehman
Downloaded by [University of Tasmania], [Kim Lehman] at 20:00 13 July 2015
Lehman, K., & Roach G. (2011). The strategic role of electronic marketing in the Australian
museum sector. Museum Management and Curatorship, 26(2), 291!306.
Leighton, D. (2007). “Step back in time and live the legend”: Experiential marketing and the heritage
sector. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 12(2), 117!125.
Manney, G.L., Santee, M.L., Rex, M., Livesey, N. J., Pitts, M.C., Veefkind, P., … Zinoviev, N.S.
(2011). Unprecedented Arctic ozone loss in 2011 echoed the Antarctic ozone hole. Nature, 478,
469!475.
Mark, M. (2012, March 25). Humans are driving species to extinction. The Sunday Times, p. 11.
Markham, S.F., & Richards, H.C. (1933). A report on the museums & art galleries of Australia to
the Carnegie Corporation of New York. London: The Museums Association.
McKercher, B. (2004). A comparative study of international cultural tourists. Journal of Hospitality
and Tourism Management, 11(1), 95!107.
McLean, F. (1993). Marketing in museums: A contextual analysis. Museum Management and
Curatorship, 12(1), 11!27.
McLean, F. (1998). Corporate identity: What does it mean for museums? Journal of Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Marketing, 3(1), 11!21.
Museums Association. (2009). Sustainability and museums: Report on consultation. Retrieved Jan-
uary 2, 2014, from http://www.museumsassociation.org/download?idD17944
Museums Australia. (2003). Museums and sustainability: Guidelines for policy and practice in
museums and galleries. Retrieved December 21, 2013, from http://www.museumsaustralia.org.
au/userfiles/file/Policies/sustainability.pdf
Museums Board of Victoria. (2011). Museums board of Victoria annual report 2010!11.
Melbourne: Author.
National Standards Taskforce. (2011). National standards for Australian museums and galleries,
version 1.2. Carlton South: Museums Australia (Victoria).
Neuman, W.L. (2003). Social research methods (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Pigott, P. H., Blainey, G.N., Boswell, R.W., Clayton, A., Mulvaney, D.J., Talbot, F.H., … Payne,
E.E. (1975). Museums in Australia: Report of the Committee of Inquiry on Museums and
National Collections including the report of the Planning Committee on the Gallery of Aborigi-
nal Australia. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.
Queensland Museum. (2011). Annual report 2010!11. Brisbane: Board of the Queensland
Museum.
Rasmussen, C. (2001). A museum for the people: A history of Museum Victoria and its predeces-
sors, 1854!2000. Melbourne: Scribe.
Rentschler, R. (2004). Museum marketing: Understanding different types of audiences. In F. Kerri-
gan, P. Fraser & M. Ozbilgin (Eds.), Arts marketing (pp. 139!158). Oxford: Butterworth-
Heinemann.
Rentschler, R. (2007). Museum marketing: No longer a dirty word. In R. Rentschler & A-M. Hede
(Eds.), Museum marketing: Competing in the global marketplace (pp. 12
!20). Oxford: Butter-
worth-Heinemann.
Rentschler, R. & Geursen, G. (1999). Unlocking art museum management: Myths and realities for
contemporary times. International Journal of Arts Management, 2(1), 9!21.
Richards, T., & Richards, L. (1995). Using computers in qualitative research. In N. Denzin &
Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 445!462). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Sage.
Scott, C. (2003). Museums and impact. Curator: The Museum Journal, 46(3), 293!310.
Scott, C. (2005). Australian museums and social inclusion. Curator: The Museum Journal, 48(1),
36!41.
South Australian Museum Board. (2011). Annual report of the South Australian Museum Board
2010!11. Adelaide: Author.
Stylianou-Lambert, T. (2011). Gazing from home: Cultural tourism and art museums. Annals of
Tourism Research, 38(2), 403!421.
Tasmanian Museum & Art Gallery (TMAG). (2014). Our role. Retrieved March 11, 2014, from
http://www.tmag.tas.gov.au/about_us/our_role
Thomas, C., & Mark, W. (2012). Extinction and climate change. Nature, 482(7386), E4!E5.
Ticehurst, G.W., & Veal, A.J. (2000). Business research methods. Melbourne: Addison Wesley
Longman.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism 17
Downloaded by [University of Tasmania], [Kim Lehman] at 20:00 13 July 2015
Toppinen, A., & Korhonen-Kuri, K. (2013). Global Reporting Initiative and social impact in man-
aging corporate responsibility: A case study of three multinationals in the forest industry.
Business Ethics: A European Review, 22(2), 202!217.
Tourism Research Australia. (2009). Snapshots 2009 ! Cultural and heritage tourism in Australia.
Retrieved February 5, 2014, from http://www.tra.gov.au/documents/Snapshots_2009_Cultural_
FINAL.pdf
Travers, T. (2006). Museums and galleries in Britain: Economic, social and creative impacts.
London: National Museum Directors Conference/Museums, Libraries and Archives Council.
UNESCO. (2014). World heritage and sustainable tourism programme. Retrieved January 20,
2014, from http://whc.unesco.org/en/tourism
van Aalst, I., & Boogaarts, I. (2002). From museum to mass entertainment: The evolution of the role
of museums in cities. European Urban and Regional Studies, 9(3), 195!209.
Weil, S.E. (2002). Making museums matter. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Weitzman, E., & Miles, M. (1995). Computer programs for qualitative data analysis. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Western Australian Museum. (2011). Annual report 2010/2011. Perth: Author.
Wild, S. (2013). Accounting for heritage, cultural and community assets ! alternative metrics from
a New Zealand Maori educational institution. Australasian Accounting, Business and Finance
Journal, 7(1), 3!22.
Willis, A. (2003). The role of the global reporting initiative’s sustainability reporting guidelines in
the social screening of investments. Journal of Business Ethics, 43(3), 233!237.
Wray, M., Dredge, D., Cox, C., Buultjens, J., Hollick, M., Lee, D., & Pearlman, M. (2010). Sustain-
able regional tourism destinations: Best practice for the sustainable management, development
and marketing of regional tourism destinations. CRC for Sustainable Tourism. Retrieved Feb-
ruary 5, 2014, from http://www.sustainabletourismonline.com/default.aspx
18 M. Wickham and K. Lehman
Downloaded by [University of Tasmania], [Kim Lehman] at 20:00 13 July 2015
